Are DCNH subtypes nonsense?

Simple Yes or No. This is the first post I've done in a while and I've seen that DCNH seems to be popular. I want to see if it's worth the time and energy. If you could say why or why not, that'd be great too.

I think DCNH is dumb and heavily increases odds for mistyping. The nut of my argument against it, is that no compelling reason exists for why anyone should take DCNH seriously, because the entire foundation of it is solely based on "cuz Gulenko said so."

Oh? :

Originally Posted by Ashton

I like the DCNH idea because it suggests that IE usage is more flexible than what Model A predicates. This kind of flexibility matches my own experience and observation of the types. Bukalov's function dimensionality idea is also suggestive of this, and is something I incorporate into my thoughts on type.

What happened?

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

Hey Ashton, you actually do a good job of getting to the crux of what I MIGHT have an issue with in regards to this system. I would also like to add that it seems very confining...I personally, from simply glancing over the descriptions, have NO IDEA which one of the four I fall under. I don't think people are as stable as the model suggests. My 2 cents. I'm waiting to see what others say.

That was before I actually read into it (notice I said DCNH idea). I thought initially it was just something about how IE usage is adaptive and people can basically evolve into being more proficient based on environmental conditions, etc. I didn't know it involved all kinds of ridiculous suppositions about personas and energy types and other horse poop.

I see, but why can't you just extract DCNH and leave out the other stuff? If it fits your observations and experience of the types, like you say.

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

I agree. Four subtypes for one type is really unnecessary considering how they're defined. Two is as really dull as you can get, or else we're gonna have to start inventing more types. "Why have subtypes when they can just be new types?" and yes overly specific, like some people's understanding of socionics. Maybe they need to make more to account for the specific behaviors of every person in the world.

Essentially what we have in Socionics is Quadra, which defines cognitive process. Then the next division is Temperament, which expounds upon a focus within each Quadra. If you can think of something so necessary as for a third subdivision within Temperament, be my guest and use it. Let me know when you find something good.

Essentially what we have in Socionics is Quadra, which defines cognitive process. Then the next division is Temperament, which expounds upon a focus within each Quadra. If you can think of something so necessary as for a third subdivision within Temperament, be my guest and use it. Let me know when you find something good.

ehh quadra doesn't define someone's "cognitive process", their type does. and temperament is just one way out of many (including all dichotomies and small groups) to categorize the types.

Duals have similar thought process compared to extinguishment, which is why you feel close to them--the whole meaning behind "quadra," they're all in the same group comfortable with their general thought process. If you feel distance with your dual then it's a bigger problem. However both are same temperament, dual and extinguishment, yet for some reason it doesn't matter in extinguishment relations. This means temperament is also something more within the quadra, specifying focus. It equates directly to the dominant function and makes each type individual or a key position within their quadra.

DCNH rant

Okay, first I'll preface this by saying that after looking into it, DCNH is complete and utter horse shit. If you disagree, then turn away for you won't like what I have to say. Otherwise, enjoy.

Obvious problems? Strengthening of functions. Now many spout out diarrhea about how DCNH doesn't mean strengthened functions. But if you look at the articles Mr. Gulenko posted, it's obvious that he thinks otherwise as he uses that oh so troubling word "STRENGTHENED". I'm coming from the source here. Secondly, how is it even possible to strengthen and at the same time!? (D-personality) or and (C-personality). Has everyone forgotten that the foundation of socionics (Jung's theories) state that a preference for feeling also means a repression of thinking (Sensing, intuiting, etc.)? It's very simple actually. So before several of you start spewing bullshit terminology to justify pure silliness of something that is actually very simple to understand, please go die quietly in a corner.

Secondly, on various articles I've seen DCNH type related to the persona. What!? Do you even know what the persona is!? It has nothing to do with energy, nothing to do with information, and everything to do with the way you were brought up and made sense of the world as a child. From the man himself:

For the growing child, the development of a viable social persona is a vital part of adapting to, and preparing for, adult life in the external social world. 'A strong ego relates to the outside world through a flexible persona; identification with a specific persona (doctor, scholar, artist, etc.) inhibits psychological development'.[2] Thus for Jung 'the danger is that [people] become identical with their personas - the professor with his textbook, the tenor with his voice'.[3] The result could be 'the shallow, brittle, conformist kind of personality which is "all persona", with its excessive concern for "what people think"'.

So, please stop this nonsense of relating persona to DCNH. One is a good theory, the other is pure nonsense.

Thirdly, what the F*CK is the LOGIC in temperaments inside temperaments!? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? It's totally inconsistent! "Well, humans are inconsistent..." True, but that doesn't change the fact that you have pronounced traits that are very obvious among examination. Secondly, that's a cop out answer, go fuck yourself.

Fourthly, DCNH isn't observable at ALL in real life and is used to make bullshit typings. People aren't as specific as DCNH would like to make you think. The only subtype systems that are worth anything are those that you can actually SEE And that doesn't exist in DCNH. If it did, why would Gulenko originally have 2 subtypes? It's clear to me that he only saw 2 emerging patterns originally between the types. For the record, patterns that can be observed. Not some silly theory that relates it to something as vague as "energy" and philosophical goals people have in mind.

Fifthly, seriously just use ACC/PRO or INERT/CONTACT. They make much more sense.

Okay, first I'll preface this by saying that after looking into it, DCNH is complete and utter horse shit. If you disagree, then turn away for you won't like what I have to say. Otherwise, enjoy.

Obvious problems? Strengthening of functions. Now many spout out diarrhea about how DCNH doesn't mean strengthened functions. But if you look at the articles Mr. Gulenko posted, it's obvious that he thinks otherwise as he uses that oh so troubling word "STRENGTHENED". I'm coming from the source here. Secondly, how is it even possible to strengthen and at the same time!? (D-personality) or and (C-personality). Has everyone forgotten that the foundation of socionics (Jung's theories) state that a preference for feeling also means a repression of thinking (Sensing, intuiting, etc.)? It's very simple actually. So before several of you start spewing bullshit terminology to justify pure silliness of something that is actually very simple to understand, please go die quietly in a corner.

Secondly, on various articles I've seen DCNH type related to the persona. What!? Do you even know what the persona is!? It has nothing to do with energy, nothing to do with information, and everything to do with the way you were brought up and made sense of the world as a child. From the man himself:

For the growing child, the development of a viable social persona is a vital part of adapting to, and preparing for, adult life in the external social world. 'A strong ego relates to the outside world through a flexible persona; identification with a specific persona (doctor, scholar, artist, etc.) inhibits psychological development'.[2] Thus for Jung 'the danger is that [people] become identical with their personas - the professor with his textbook, the tenor with his voice'.[3] The result could be 'the shallow, brittle, conformist kind of personality which is "all persona", with its excessive concern for "what people think"'.

So, please stop this nonsense of relating persona to DCNH. One is a good theory, the other is pure nonsense.

Thirdly, what the F*CK is the LOGIC in temperaments inside temperaments!? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? It's totally inconsistent! "Well, humans are inconsistent..." True, but that doesn't change the fact that you have pronounced traits that are very obvious among examination. Secondly, that's a cop out answer, go fuck yourself.

Fourthly, DCNH isn't observable at ALL in real life and is used to make bullshit typings. People aren't as specific as DCNH would like to make you think. The only subtype systems that are worth anything are those that you can actually SEE And that doesn't exist in DCNH. If it did, why would Gulenko originally have 2 subtypes? It's clear to me that he only saw 2 emerging patterns originally between the types. For the record, patterns that can be observed. Not some silly theory that relates it to something as vague as "energy" and philosophical goals people have in mind.

Fifthly, seriously just use ACC/PRO or INERT/CONTACT. They make much more sense.

If you would like to add on to this list, by all means.

If you are going to rant about DCNH and order it hung, drawn and quartered, at least realize that Accepting/Producing has the same issues for which you are criticizing DCNH, that is illogical "strengthening". That you don't see that makes me doubt just how much you actually understand what you are talking about and are really just throwing out rash conclusions due to your general frustration, but at any rate you have to consider what DCNH's strengthening really means, and just because it's not the same as Accepting/Producing or Inert/Contact doesn't make it automatically invalid.

You remind of gooey by the way.

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

I have to consider what DCNH's strengthening really means? Please, enlighten me. I admit A/P suffers from the same lack of logic but it seems you can visibly see it at least. Something I can't say for dcnh. Inert/contact is probably the most logically consistent argument FOR subtypes. In truth, there probably are no subtypes...

A singular obsession with subtype systems and their validity(or lack thereof) with barely any forum activity discussing something besides them, I mean.

An obsession? this is my second post on the subject and as for the lack of activity, I haven't been on here for months. I saw it was a popular subject (one i hadn't even heard of), looked into it, and this is my opinion. deal with it.

I have to consider what DCNH's strengthening really means? Please, enlighten me. I admit A/P suffers from the same lack of logic but it seems you can visibly see it at least. Something I can't say for dcnh. Inert/contact is probably the most logically consistent argument FOR subtypes. In truth, there probably are no subtypes...

"Something you can visibly see" Well, apparently tons of "experts" in the Eastern part of the world can see DCNH subtypes and for years various people on this forum were believing Accepting/Producing was a valid subtype system. Some still do. If only Inert-Contact is valid then that means all those people are deluded, or these systems refer to different kinds of "Strengthening".

There may be no subtypes at all in reality, but in theory Inert-Contact is a valid possibility.

Originally Posted by sar

An obsession? this is my second post on the subject and as for the lack of activity, I haven't been on here for months. I saw it was a popular subject (one i hadn't even heard of), looked into it, and this is my opinion. deal with it.

Relax, I mean overall, your total forum history mostly consist of subtypes. And I don't mean anything by it, it's just something I noticed.

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

"Something you can visibly see" Well, apparently tons of "experts" in the Eastern part of the world can see DCNH subtypes and for years various people on this forum were believing Accepting/Producing was a valid subtype system. Some still do. If only Inert-Contact is valid then that means all those people are deluded, or these systems refer to different kinds of "Strengthening".

There may be no subtypes at all in reality, but in theory Inert-Contact is a valid possibility.

People see what they want to see. The whole concept of "strengthening" goes against Jung and even model A. Something I'm not really inclined to want to do. I agree with you that, in theory, if subtypes exist I/C is the way to go. Sorry I got so defensive. It's just that I feel very strongly that DCNH can go suck a fuck.

People see what they want to see. The whole concept of "strengthening" goes against Jung and even model A. Something I'm not really inclined to want to do. I agree with you that, in theory, if subtypes exist I/C is the way to go. Sorry I got so defensive. It's just that I feel very strongly that DCNH can go suck a fuck.

lol. Feisty.

Well we agree on I/C, and that's all I'm really interested in so, yeah.. I guess.

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

Duals have similar thought process compared to extinguishment, which is why you feel close to them--the whole meaning behind "quadra," they're all in the same group comfortable with their general thought process. If you feel distance with your dual then it's a bigger problem. However both are same temperament, dual and extinguishment, yet for some reason it doesn't matter in extinguishment relations. This means temperament is also something more within the quadra, specifying focus. It equates directly to the dominant function and makes each type individual or a key position within their quadra.

Duals don't have similar thought processes as far as how they think, duality is about compatibility not similarity. I think to characterize the thought processes of duals as similar is misleading.

Kindred and Business relations are closer in thought processes and these share the same temperament. There are imo quite a few types that are more similar in thought process to a individual than one's dual.

I think DCNH is incomplete although we can still contemplate the ideas and observations flaws and all, it's like calling a individual a Thinker or a Feeler and ignoring the other characteristics.

I think further categorization is going to occur, just as socionics is derived from the 4 type systems of Plato and 8 type systems of Jung.

Simple Yes or No. This is the first post I've done in a while and I've seen that DCNH seems to be popular. I want to see if it's worth the time and energy. If you could say why or why not, that'd be great too.

It is definitely worth looking into. I was just thinking about this today. You read it and contemplate it and then you take a couple of years of observations to learn it. I don't understand why some people are so critical, it obviously works, it's not like Gulenko has invented this in a vacuum, it's based on observations, just like socionics is. For example Ni and Si is connected on a subtype level, it is so easy to see this, for example being sensual and spiritual in H persons. And the subtype relations work well too: D-N is a frequent combination in couples, so is H-C. It's all about taking the time to observe this, and understanding what to look for, but I don't think anybody can prove this. If you can get to know people of your own type but with all 4 different subtypes, then it's a good start. When you get further you can use 8 subtypes, it's often quite easy to distinguish between for example Ti- and Fi-normalizing etc. The really cool part is to see how these things occur in our culture. Gulenko has some examples, but it is easy to think of more.

I don't understand why some people are so critical, it obviously works, it's not like Gulenko has invented this in a vacuum, it's based on observations, just like socionics is. For example Ni and Si is connected on a subtype level, it is so easy to see this, for example being sensual and spiritual in H persons. And the subtype relations work well too: D-N is a frequent combination in couples, so is H-C. It's all about taking the time to observe this, and understanding what to look for, but I don't think anybody can prove this. If you can get to know people of your own type but with all 4 different subtypes, then it's a good start. When you get further you can use 8 subtypes, it's often quite easy to distinguish between for example Ti- and Fi-normalizing etc. The really cool part is to see how these things occur in our culture. Gulenko has some examples, but it is easy to think of more.

Totally off the radar but his cognitive styles are ripped off and in opposition to themselves, that is, based on something old, something that was successfully used in political theory as well. As for his subtype system, didn't give much thought into it, was busy with other things, but I'll do.

If the theory makes sense, and it fits your observations, then it works. If it doesn't then it doesn't.

Well, if and only if something makes sense as in fitting it in your frame of reality (thanks Ashton, couldn't find a better word), then I don't see a problem. I'm just blabbing not so out of the blue and noticing certain things. Things I have been exposed to/learned about in the past.

You should be able to discern that using your own judgment.

Hehe. You don't make it especially easy for yourself.

EDIT:Agape once PMd me this big list of subtypes multiplied by many and I ended up x/x axis, that is aquadra/quadra axis. Like I said ddn't think about it picking it, but time will come and best LSE in world is going to win the cup of socionics?

Well, if and only if something makes sense as in fitting it in your frame of reality (thanks Ashton, couldn't find a better word), then I don't see a problem. I'm just blabbing not so out of the blue and noticing certain things. Things I have been exposed to/learned about in the past.

Yea. Truly that's all you can go on. If a theory doesn't make sense to you and it doesn't fit your observations, what good does other people attesting to its validity have?

I mean if it can't be demonstrated or proved.

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

Fourthly, DCNH isn't observable at ALL in real life and is used to make bullshit typings. People aren't as specific as DCNH would like to make you think. The only subtype systems that are worth anything are those that you can actually SEE And that doesn't exist in DCNH.

i have to disagree with this part, at least my case. reading the descriptions of the four DCNH subtypes, i can see myself clearly in the Harmonizing description. i can sometimes see others in the descriptions too, e.g. i see woofwoof in the Dominant description, and iirc he did identify with the Dominant description when he read it.

when determining someone's DCNH subtype, so far it has helped me to look at the role the person tends to take on in group situations, instead of just considering a person's behavior independent of their interaction with other people. that may help to make a person's DCNH subtype a bit clearer.

no typology system (or subtype system) is going to perfectly describe a person, but there's nothing wrong with trying to categorize specific behaviors. if you think about it DCNH is actually rather broad and not that specific, as it only categorizes people 4 ways instead of 16 ways, like sociotypes do.

People see what they want to see. The whole concept of "strengthening" goes against Jung and even model A. Something I'm not really inclined to want to do. I agree with you that, in theory, if subtypes exist I/C is the way to go. Sorry I got so defensive. It's just that I feel very strongly that DCNH can go suck a fuck.

Model A describes perfect metabolisms and strengthening/accentuating explains real expressions. There is no perfect metabolism, the model should not be mistaken for reality.

II don't understand why some people are so critical, it obviously works, it's not like Gulenko has invented this in a vacuum, it's based on observations, just like socionics is.

A) That's not all socionics is.
B) DCNH is basically just Gulenko's silly way of saying "some introverts are more extroverted than others, some irrationals more rational..." No shit. It's called being a person. No need to make a system out of it. He even claims that DCNH is so strong that they affect people under close contact more than their actual type. Well then, let's just throw out the entire basis socionics was founded upon then.
C)Observations? Again, people see what they want to see. Hence why there are SEVERAL subtype systems (None universally accepted, mind you.) Why did Gulenko start with 2 descriptions? Why do M and O have 2? How come some people see 16? Why do some see none? etc.

There's plenty to criticize about DCNH, and I view it as a inferior subtype system in practice to the 2 subtype systems, however I think there are observations in DCNH that are not noticed in the various 2 subtype systems. I try to deal with the specific problems of DCNH rather then ignore it or try to make it a popularity contest.

DCNH deals with mainly roles people adopt in interaction due to function accentuation and strengthening and it is based on observation of identical interactions, it allows further more detailed compatibility models by hypothesizing how different versions of identicals and other types(and their subtypes) can mesh better and more cohesively.

That has significant usage imo and is a significant observation that doesn't exist with the 2 subtype systems(which are also incomplete in their own ways). Typing is unreliable, sub-typing even more so, nothing new here. There are people that can deal with this and others that pretend to deal with it by ignorance and/or overconfidence. You see this happening a lot on the forum and in general in many topics. It's clearly a hypothesis at the moment, but imo there are definitely observations being made which are legitimate and found no where else in socionics at this time.

Gulenko's LSE EM type apparently leads him to some silly errors... premature judgments about people and all that. I've retreated the subject in the Hypotheses forum. I think you'll find my interpretation consistent with experience.